Truth be told, it’s been years since I’ve had so much fun writing. That’s partly because of interactions with dozens of commentators. Sure, we’ve had some difficult moments, but overall I’d say that you’ve shown how open dialogue can significantly deepen our mutual understanding of a topic.

Nevertheless, all experiments must end. With the beginning of summer I really need to refocus on a series of big writing projects relating to my livelihood. Perhaps in time I can return to local writing, but for at least the next six months I’ll be pretty booked.

So this is the last piece I will post here at Olympia Views. The plan is to mothball the beast after leaving the comments open for a while to capture any final thoughts. My hope is to maintain the site so that stories of historical value can continue to be accessed.

Thank you for your participation

Even by blogospheric standards Olympia Views is fairly small. However, its readership — and visibility in the community — has grown well beyond what I had expected. Thank you to all who have taken the time to read this blog.

Just as it takes effort to write a thoughtful post, so too it takes time to produce a meaningful comment. So I want to thank all of you who have contributed to Olympia Views. I’d particularly like to express my appreciation to Tom Hyde, Rob Richards and Russ Lehman, who together contributed almost half of all comments.

I’d also like to express my gratitude to fellow local bloggers Thad Curtz, Mathias Eichler, Dan Jones, Emmett O’Connell and Rob Richards. You’ve graciously shared links, kudos and helpful criticism from early on. That’s exactly what’s needed to support a stronger network of local bloggers.

Some commentators have stated that you’d like to see this type of conversation continue. If you have the energy to make that happen I’d encourage you to work through an existing alternative media outlet such as OlyBlog. Or help Works In Progress or Green Pages build their web presence.

I’m saddened to leave these conversations. Local blogging is great good fun. But that will need to wait for another time and another platform.

In the meantime, I hope that you all will “vote with your wallet” by financially supporting independent local media. Quality journalism is like any other good or service — in the end, you get what you pay for.

“We build an identity for ourselves in our communities. And just as we don’t like to leave our community, we also don’t like to lose our identity. A food critic who builds her identity around nasty, negative reviews, and gets lots of attention because of them, is always going to need to find terrible restaurants to eat at so she can keep getting attention. She’ll probably even began (sic) to like disgusting food and poor service because that means she’s going to get to write a truly vicious review and everybody will tell her how witty she is. If something you dislike helps you get something you do like, you’re going to have trouble getting rid of the thing you don’t like.”

– Mark, Everybody Has A Brain*

* Via Everyday Olympia

So what’s up with George? One theory is that he needs a gig. That doesn’t sound to me like a terribly compelling rationale. When you look at the enormous cost, effort and risk involved in a serious run for county commission I can think of a lot easier ways to find a decent job.

Another rationale is that his mission is to split the Democratic-leaning vote with Karen Rogers as a means of protecting incumbent Cathy Wolfe. Perhaps, but such a gambit could easily backfire. In addition, given all of the hassles of running even a half-hearted campaign, that’s an awfully big favor to do for a fellow politician who happens to hold your old job.

I don’t know George, but based on my general sense of career politicians I wonder if he wants to relive the glory days of being a county commissioner. Electoral politics can be mesmerizing — and even addictive. People who aren’t well grounded can disappear into the vortex of the political realm.

It happens all the time. Earnest people go into politics saying that they’ll only serve a term or two but end up sticking around until they are pushed out — or die in office.

Of course, one could argue that George is already an elected official. Yes, but being a port commissioner doesn’t have anywhere near the power of a county commissioner.

I hope George knows what he’s doing. I hope that his credo is “do no harm.” And I hope that he is grounded enough in his own sense of identity that he knows when to leave the public stage.

May I be honest? I’m concerned that library champions will push ahead with a new proposal that is too similar to previous ones. Without rethinking their assumptions — and engaging the community in a deeper way — I strongly suspect that a new proposal will fail.

One key area where the library could up its game is to champion community-wide library facilities planning. I wrote about this last October. For example, if we’re going to spend money on a new building then I think it should be in partnership with at least one other entity. An obvious potential partner could be the state library.

Another potential parter could be the Olympia Center. What I’m getting at is that if a major goal of a new library is to create more “public space,” why not build the library side by side the community center so you can create “one-stop shopping?”

These specific ideas are less important than the general principle of reaching outside of the silo.

So I’d like to offer the general invitation to send in a comment with a handful of your very favorites and perhaps a sentence as to why they are so valuable to you. To keep the exercise from becoming too unwieldy, how about sticking to topics revolving around the general theme of this blog: media, politics, sustainability and running government. Don’t confine yourself to the South Sound if your attentions stray beyond the hyperlocal bubble.

I suspect that there may be a lot of similarities but some fascinating variety.

• Emmett O’Connell points out that even a weak Republican county commission candidate could make it into the general election against Cathy Wolfe if Republican voters hang together while three Democrats fight over the rest of the local electorate.
• Russ Lehman adds to a previous critique of Olympia Food Co-op culture, which elicits impassioned responses from armedwithvisions and a detailed rejoinder from cascadian12. This has been a difficult conversation at times (see here and here) but I think we’re getting clearer with each other about the assumptions that inform our differing perspectives on placemaking.
• A post about the relationship between placemaking and Facebook generated some great links from Tom Hyde and a lively discussion with Emmett O’Connell about the role of a public library in an increasingly virtual society.

I’d like to thank all of you who took time out of your weekend to participate. I’d also like to express my appreciation for the ways that commentators have worked hard to more effectively talk across differences. Sometimes we have had awkward moments, but that’s an integral part of building a learning community. This is what I think any good news media outlet must become if it is to transcend the “Lord of the Flies” quality of The Olympian.

If I could make one wish it would be for greater gender balance in the conversation. It’s been pretty male oriented. Let me know if there are things I can do as a convener to make Olympia Views more welcoming to women readers.

“What’s clear is that an Obama victory could have profound political implications for the future of the Democratic Party. When 44 arrived in office, some forecast that he might usher in a New New Deal. (Nope.) But if he gains reelection by consolidating his party’s position with the electorate’s ascendant demographic forces, Obama may succeed in creating a viable post–New Deal coalition on which Democrats can build for years to come. ‘Ronald Reagan turned a whole bunch of people who are now seniors into Republicans,’ says Messina. ‘What is happening now is that young people, women, and Latinos are becoming Democrats. That’s the coalition Obama brought; demographics brought it, too. And for the next 30 years, it is going to be a real challenge for Republicans.’”

“Of course, if Obama loses, all such grand talk will be consigned to the ash heap of history — and hubris. And there are plenty of Democrats more jittery about that possibility than they were just a month ago. To their eyes, the president’s team seems off-kilter, his campaign off-brand, his rival finding his stride. ‘The natural gravity of this race is such that Romney will be close or a little bit ahead very soon, and it’s going to be like that through the convention,’ says a Democratic strategist. ‘Romney doesn’t have idiots working for him; they’re going to run a safe, smart, tactical campaign.’ And they have proven adept at one thing: ‘They kill well,’ admits a senior White House official. ‘And that’s not unimportant.’”

– John Heilemann, “Hope: The Sequel,” New York magazine

Let’s compare the same story run in three McClatchy newspapers

The News Tribune posted the same story by Rob Hotakainen. Only 68 percent of 28 comments were anti-Democrat. The Bellingham Herald also ran the same story, which generated two comments. One was anti- and the other pro-Democrat.

Let’s go back to The Olympian story. It elicited 13 comments, 10 of which were anti-Democrat. One comment was neutral and only one was pro-Democrat.

The total number of comments from these three McClatchy Newspapers was 43. Thirty-one of those comments were anti-Democrat. That’s 72 percent. Meanwhile, seven comments were pro-Democrat, or 16 percent. The Olympian’s commentariat is more heavily dominated by the right but they represent the majority perspective among comment threads at two of three McClatchy newspapers.

‘Up’ really can become ‘down’ if you insist on it long enough

The thing that I find most striking about the anti-Democrat comments is how religiously they follow national Republican talking points. For example, here’s wmscott in The News Tribune: “Does over 3 years without a federal budget indicate anything to you. Our Dem controlled Senate is even refusing to conference on bills of late. Sen Reid will not allow votes on the Fiscal bomb and debt limit or nearly every bill from the House. Who is blocking who?”

Here’s how The Olympian’s Leftwing_conspirator challenged a similar Republican comment: ”Nice try…Reid hasn’t brought things to a vote because it would be a waste of time.  The bill would get about 53 votes, all democrats, but because of the filibuster, it would still fail.  Given that it’s not really a political winner, there’s no political benefit in bringing a bill to the floor for failure either, so why do it?   If the GOP would allow its members to actually negotiate rather than run from the Tea Party every time it barks (or the Koch brothers threaten to fund a challenger in a primary), then maybe something would get done.  Even the Heritage Foundation signed on to a study that said the GOP has been the primary obstructionist causing the most gridlock since the civil war, and they practically write half the political commentary for Fox news.”

Not to by outdone, JonnyDemocracy dished out the standard Republican response: “Federal law requires a budget every year.  Presenting it gives the opportunity for an honest up or down vote.  The House version is then reconciled with the Senate version and sent to the President for signature.  That is how our government works, until today.  The Senate is not only violating Federal law but playing childish games with our nations future.  If you want to see obstructionism look right into the face of Dirty Harry Reid, the Demorat Gangster holding America hostage for petty and partisan political reasons.  Not even a nice try Leftwing.”

How can the average voter makes sense of these competing claims?

It won’t be by reading these comment threads, which function more as joint press conferences than real debates. What’s sad is if newspapers put more resources and creativity into reader-engagement methods they could generate a far deeper and more factually grounded dialogue.

Instead, they go for the cheap and easy out — 24/7 comment threads with minimal moderation. This is one reason why I think Victor Packard may be right that journalism needs to be reconceptualized from a commodity into a not-for-profit public good. And while we’re at it we might as well look for ways to integrate the news media and education.

Or the media could just take the quick and profitable road to fascism.

I was thinking about how this great blog post attempt at a discussion on “placemaking” went off on a Co-op tangent. Then I realized that, in fact, the Co-op may just be the perfect metaphor for the original discussion.

It is quite apparent to anyone who reads any local news and/or commentary, or has shopped at the Olympia Food Co-op, that almost any mention of it seems inevitably to bring out the strident defenders who seem offended at anyone who is not a “believer.” This may be a board member, a counter culture aficionado, an Olympia iconoclast, or just someone who loves to fight. It can even show its virulent form, as was the case here, when the offended has a grudge with someone and takes it out in writing on different person … who was making a otherwise innocent point.

Perhaps the Co-op is emblematic of exactly what Olympiaviews, and Mark have written.

Mark made a great point about the weather creating a contributing factor to the surliness that sometimes is present in Olympia. Surely the constant looking down, being covered with hoods and hats and the general lack of light makes for a somewhat dour civil society. Call it the “Old School Pizza” model of customer service – “Yea, what do you want?”

But, Port Townsend, Bellingham and Seattle have similar weather and the co-ops there are magnificent. They are friendly places where shopping for organic, local and generally higher quality food is a pleasure.

So why is the Co-op (and many other establishments) here, well…less than that? Is it the influence of Evergreen, where sometimes any association with capitalism is considered a capitulation to hegemony? Is it the proliferation of a culture which is predominantly bureaucratic (read: risk averse, anti-creative, etc) and at the same time adolescently oppositional (“I’m already against the next development”) while also being pretty homogeneous – both culturally and politically?

That the Co-op here can be a difficult place, to be a board member and to shop is axiomatic, and only the stridently defensive don’t see it. But the maybe the Co-op is more like other institutions, especially retail, than different – only more so. The parochialism that Olympiaviews has written about in the environmental movement here is certainly present, and deleterious to the cause.

A local “expert” has been working with nonprofits to join forces (where appropriate) and seek common ground both because it makes economic and organizational sense and because it is more likely to better serve the needs of the community. Rick Anderson has some great ideas and (literally) a world of experience. I hope that all of us can check our egos, be willing to share then turf and focus on the true goals of making this a better and more livable community.

Stranger things could happen, such as George Barner returning to the county commission. When I first saw him listed as a challenger to Wolfe I thought it was a typo, but nope. Interestingly, commentator Roscoe said, “Bring back Barner. He is the only one who listens.” To which prominent conservative commentator GregT80 responded, “Romero asked him to run. He is running because he is broke and ill and needs the money.” To which Sage3 stated, “Barner is running to be sure (Karen) Rogers doesn’t get out of the primary.”

So there you have it — what constitutes political commentary in The Olympian. And to think that McClatchy Newspapers didn’t have to pay a dime in labor costs! This, dear friends, is our new media future.

I shouldn’t be too hard on The Olympian. Friday’s non-bylined article did refer to a public utility district commissioner race as “vitally important to Thurston County.” And the story’s introductory paragraph did insist that “there would be no need to watch reality television” because local races “should provide more than enough entertainment value and drama.”

Only the article didn’t do much to explain why. That’s like a hamburger without the beef.

If this were the restaurant business you’d have alternative choices. But if you want substantive political analysis of county-level races where else can you find it? That’s an honest question. Perhaps Olympia Power & Light will soon weigh in. Or is it sticking to Olympia politics?

Olympia Views isn’t a “real” news media outlet — and I need to finish planting the onions — so here are some quick campaign data on county commission races from the Public Disclosure Commission. As an added bonus — at no extra cost! — you’ll find a few slices of punditry.

Republican challenger is outraising Romero

It looks like Romero will have a fairly competitive race for the District 2 county commission seat. Republican Andrew Barkis has raised more than Romero: $21,758 to $17,214. As local Republicans go Barkis has generated a pretty good list of donors but I’m not seeing signs of cross-party support. This is such a Democratic-leaning county that lack a of bipartisan donor base is usually predictive of defeat. There are exceptions, such as Judy Wilson unhorsing Barner in 1992. However, an X factor needs to be at play. Even Ken Balsley acknowledges this, albeit not necessarily for the right reasons.

Despite Barkis’ more aggressive fundraising he currently has less cash in hand than Romero because he’s been spending much more heavily: $13,593 compared to Romero’s $6,612. In a way that makes sense. Unlike Romero, Barkis will need to work hard to build his name recognition.

He also needs to present a compelling reason to kick out an incumbent. So far the county jail has been a major issue, which Jon Pettit tries to hang around the necks of Democratic commissioners even though it has had bipartisan fingerprints all over it.

I could see the jail having resonance if The Olympian doesn’t do its journalistic job of reminding people how we got to where we are. But in general Barkis doesn’t (yet) look like he is ready for prime time. For example, take a look at his website. Here’s a guy running against one of the best-known and longest-serving elected officials in the county and he is making the following argument: ”Wouldn’t it be refreshing if the county had a leader with a strong track record of being involved in our Community  . . . . Someone who demonstrates proven success?” Romero’s website quickly — and quite nicely — blows this argument out of the water. (Although she could use better photos.)

At this rate Barkis is going to have to whip the electorate into a STOP Thurston level of hysteria in order to win. I have no doubt he will raise lots of money in an effort to do so. Do not hear me suggesting complacency in this race — particularly if it turns out to be a Republican year for state and federal offices.

Wolfe now has three challengers

I imagine that Wolfe’s inner circle is having interesting conversations about how to think about her reelection campaign for the District 1 county commission seat. As previously discussed, Rogers could be a bigger challenge than a typical Republican candidate because she could draw bipartisan support if she plays her cards right. However, the entrance of Barner — who calls himself an “independent Democrat” — and Republican Ken Jones adds a new wrinkle.

Neither Barner nor Jones have raised any money and created a web presence (at least that I found). This is not a good sign given that the primary election is only a few months away. However, Barner does walk in with the advantage of being a sitting port commissioner and long-time local leader. Meanwhile, Jones is a former mayor of Tenino so presumably already possesses a decent base of support in the south county.

So where does that leave Wolfe and Rogers? The numbers haven’t changed since we last checked in: Wolfe has raised $4,936 and spent $1,436 while Rogers has raised $7,280 and spent $0.

Wolfe’s website displays a classic incumbent strategy of wrapping herself in the flag of the Democratic party establishment, such as a campaign kick-off event in March that included Sandra Romero, Karen Valenzuela, Olympia City Council Member Jim Cooper, and congressional candidate Denny Heck.

In contrast, Rogers’ website zeros in on fiscal responsibility. She demagogues on the county’s $100 million in debt, which according to the latest state-level figures is average for Washington’s higher-population counties and represents only 14 percent of what Thurston is allowed to borrow. However, I suspect that her rhetoric will sound good to low-information voters. In general her talking points strike me as more effective than Barkis’.

Nevertheless, my sense is that Wolfe has this one to lose — but she could if she doesn’t take the race very seriously. That means articulating in a much more accessible way how county government operates.

Jones looks like he will get washed out in the primary but could siphon away south county votes that Rogers was clearly hoping to win. By the same token, Barner could garner old-guard Democrat votes that might ordinarily go to Wolfe. Or he might draw away from Rogers moderate and even progressive Democratic voters who want change but can’t stomach her flirtation with the right wing. Or he could do both.

So Barner may be the biggest wildcard in this race. Pay attention to two things. First, how energetic is he in ramping up his campaign? Second, how does he position himself relative to Wolfe and Rogers? Even his Facebook page doesn’t yet offer any hints.

Well, I didn’t get the onions planted. Damn.